On October 26, 2010, a group of students with disabilities filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Louisiana Department of Education and the Orleans Parish School Board. The plaintiffs, represented by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under ...
read more >

On October 26, 2010, a group of students with disabilities filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Louisiana Department of Education and the Orleans Parish School Board. The plaintiffs, represented by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Southern Poverty Law Center, and private counsel alleged that the defendants acted and continue to act in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (ADA) of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all New Orleans students with disabilities.

Plaintiffs alleged that the New Orleans public schools had denied admission to disabled students; refused to evaluate needs for special education; failed to implement individualized education plans; and used abusive restraint techniques on disabled students. They sought a declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring the defendants to: (1) make their facilities and programs be accessible to all students with disabilities; (2) adequately evaluate disabled children; (3) implement appropriate education accommodations; (4) and provide students with disabilities with a free appropriate public education.

On March 12, 2014, there was a hearing on the motion for class certification. The District Court (Judge Jay C. Zainey) ordered a stay for filing post-hearing briefs pending the outcome of settlement negotiations between the two parties.

The parties engaged in settlement negotiations during the spring and summer of 2014. On December 19, 2014, the parties submitted a proposed Consent Judgment. The Consent Judgment defined the affected class as present or future New Orleans students who have requested but not received a special education evaluation; have disabilities, attend charter schools, and have been removed from school for 10 days or more without the timely provision of the disciplinary safeguards required by IDEA; have not received services contained in their Individualized Education Plans; have a disability and have been denied admission or told not to apply to a public school because of their disability; and have mobility impairments and have been denied access to programs and services of New Orleans schools because of physical barriers. Judge Zainey issued preliminary approval of the Consent Judgment on January 8th, 2015.

Following preliminary approval of the settlement, in early February, 2015, several parents of class members submitted objections to the Consent Judgment. Before the final hearing on the Judgment, plaintiffs' counsel met with those parents to discuss their concerns. On March 25, the court entered an order granting final approval of the Decree.

The Judgment required schools to develop processes for finding and evaluating students with disabilities for special education services; implementing special education services and related services; review and reform disciplinary policies; and educate charter schools about their legal obligation to enroll students with disabilities. It also dictated reporting requirements and appointed an Independent Monitor to periodically assess defendants' progress. The Judgment was to be in effect until the state had achieved substantial compliance with the terms of the agreement for two consecutive years. The state was ordered to cover the costs of the Independent Monitor.

The first report of the Independent Monitor was submitted in June of 2016. The most recent report as of this writing dates from May 2017, and indicates that the state has achieved substantial compliance with the provisions governing finding and evaluating students for special education services, but that progress toward disciplinary reform and enrollment increases for students with disabilities has been mixed.

Consistent with the agreement, the court retains jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.